Sipkovska and Sipkovski (No. 2)

In the matter of Sipkovska and Sipkovski (No. 2), Bell J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning the welfare and parental responsibility of a child, N, born in January 1993. The proceedings involved the mother and the father, who was incarcerated.

The court was required to determine several critical issues, including whether to grant the mother leave to withdraw an earlier application, the living arrangements and parental responsibility for the child N, and the extent to which the father's contact with and proximity to the mother and child should be restricted, both during his incarceration and upon his potential release. Further issues related to the disclosure of the mother's contact details to the father, the notification procedures by the Department of Corrective Services regarding the father's bail or release, and the disposition of the children's passports. The court also considered the father's ability to institute future proceedings under the *Family Law Act* and the allocation of costs.

Bell J made extensive orders aimed at protecting the child and the mother. The mother was granted leave to withdraw her application, and the child N was ordered to live with the mother, who was given sole parental responsibility. Crucially, the father's address and contact details were not to be released to him, and he was restrained from coming within one kilometre of the child or the mother. Significant restrictions were also placed on the father's ability to communicate with or approach the mother and child, both directly and indirectly, and through third parties, particularly upon his release from jail. The court also ordered that the children's passports, held by the Independent Children's Lawyer, be released to the mother, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged. The father was prohibited from instituting proceedings under the *Family Law Act* for children's orders without leave of the court. The court also included particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention in a fact sheet attached to the orders, and there were no orders for costs.